I maintain that an atheist can have morals - absolutely. For me, the expert in this field was the philosopher David Hume (1711-1776). But his deliberations didn't meet with much acclaim at the time. Many other thinkers have struggled with your question. They failed to answer it by arguments based on pure reason. Like the great Kant, they had to postulate some "a priori's".In modern times, experimental psychologists have entered the fray, devising highly simplified experiments e.g. on the famous "prisoner's dilemma" and its variants. Others have done computer simulations on "populations", which included some "antisocial" individuals, besides the law-abiding (moral?) majority. It turned out that "policing" by some members of the majority improved the fate of the group. But this almost amounts to "begging the question" - a question which, in my opinion, is still unanswered.

I have a philosophy of life, you have an ideology un-examined and patently false. - You know, I have often admired, on this board, your wide-ranging knowledge, differentiated arguments and mastery of language(s). But if you quit your usual reserve and wax polemical, things tend to turn ugly. Better be careful with your sharp sword.

I have a philosophy of life, you have an ideology un-examined and patently false. - You know, I have often admired, on this board, your wide-ranging knowledge, differentiated arguments and mastery of language(s). But if you quit your usual reserve and wax polemical, things tend to turn ugly. Better be careful with your sharp sword.

this was, undoubtedly, meant to be a rhetorical you, not aimed at anyone in particular, eh?

I have a philosophy of life, you have an ideology un-examined and patently false.

You know, I have often admired, on this board, your wide-ranging knowledge, differentiated arguments and mastery of language(s). But if you quit your usual reserve and wax polemical, things tend to turn ugly. Better be careful with your sharp sword.

Yeah, well, it was an overheated discussion anyway, but, I guess, in the end, I need to work on my sarcasm or ought that to be irony? I was riffing on the conjugations meme (or whatever it's called). You know, where I am object, your are subject, and s/he is beyond the pale. And, thanks for the kind words ...

I have a philosophy of life, you have an ideology un-examined and patently false. - You know, I have often admired, on this board, your wide-ranging knowledge, differentiated arguments and mastery of language(s). But if you quit your usual reserve and wax polemical, things tend to turn ugly. Better be careful with your sharp sword.

this was, undoubtedly, meant to be a rhetorical you, not aimed at anyone in particular, eh?

This was clearly a rethorical I and a rethorical you, even I could understand that and the tendency of the post; between ironic and sarcastic. I hope irony and sarcasm will still be allowed on this originally free and open board.

Thinking about the difference between irony and sarcasm. Could sarcasm be the critisism of a bitter person and irony the critisism of someone capable of relativating the facts of life? No matter how awful the facts often are? I'm reading the integral Don Quichote by Cervantes. Besides being mad he is masterfully ironic. Perfect classic for the summer vacation fully illustrated by Honoré Daumier.

Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site.
Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to
hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.